SLA, teaching and the Shaolin paper
John Haberstroh
because it is top-down proscriptive (while
apparently criticizing top-down proscriptivism) and
the language learning recommendations it offers are
not supported by comparative research of alternative
methods. And, of course, there is the
obscurity/obfuscation of the currently popular
academic dialect.
However, on the positive side, I did find, behind
the post-modern smokescreen, a secret but healthy
support for a partially behaviorist conception of
the language learning process. I think that is the
right way to go, partially behaviorist, but not
avoiding the importance of (sub)consciousness,
affect/social needs, and will power.
Also, the anecdotes that are found in the
introductory section are very thought-provoking. Any
thinker about instruction would benefit by reading
and pondering them. However, they should be thought
of (only) as excellent brainstorming devices for
expanding how we think about instruction. They
should not be used as evidence for one particular
approach or another.
(I'll comment directly on the first paragraphs of
'Shao-lin')
The following were the concluding sentences of the
introductory paragraph:
>The question which the paper attempts to tackle is
that of the place of learners as individuals in an
environment where the goal is to sensitise them to
the systematicities of the target language systems.
>The framework proposed seeks to suggest ways of
achieving this goal without necessarily subjecting
learners to pre-determined and pre-organised
procedures which claim their legitimacy either in
teachers' experience or in theoretical models of
acquisition.
The first of these sentences, when it states 'the
goal is to sensitise...' seems to overlook a great
deal compared to, for example, the following goal:
to produce and understand English fluently and
accurately. 'Sensitization to systematicities' is
not all that we want language learners to achieve.
The second sentences restricts us from the outset,
but doesn't offer a reason for doing so. If
'pre-organised procedures' helped learners in
certain contexts better than procedures that were
not, it would be wrong not to use them.
Paragraph two, sentence one, of the introduction
sets up an artificial enemy:
>The general direction which the article follows
revolves around the issue of dealing with the
unpredictable perceptions of heterogeneous learners:
an aspect of pedagogy which remains ignored in
environments where concern with balanced lessons and
controlled progressions from "easy" to "difficult"
based on features of formal systems eclipses concern
for learners as organisers of the socially-based
schemes which they construct.
Here, the phrase 'which remains ignored in
environments...' sets up the paper enemy. Who are
these people who are ignoring the 'unpredictable
perceptions of heterogeneous learners'? In fact,
teachers recognize the real challenge of satisfying
the learning needs of heterogeneous learners, with
unpredictable perceptions, who are grouped together
in classes. Teachers must be cognizant of this
perception but still seek the most effective
practice, which may not be to individualize
instruction.
In addition, another paper enemy is set up when we
read at the end of the sentence that the Lians
concern is with 'learners as organisers of the
socially-based schemes which they construct' in
apparent contrast to those who do not think of
learners in that way. But I think most of do think
of learners in that way, if the terminology is
understood in a somewhat broad sense. I don't see,
however, that understanding learners in such a way
leads our teaching practice to what I would describe
as the 'complete individualization' recommended in
Shao-lin.
The sentence following the one quoted above...
>Thus the article argues for an environment where
the need to question and discover drives the
learners' explorations of the relationships between
the language and the social practices which have
shaped its place and functioning in speech
communities i.e. language in authentic contexts
(Hymes 1996, p. 30).
It is unclear how the above follows from the
previous sentence, and I have a problem with 'the
need to question and discover drives the learners'
explorations...' Of course we all have this need,
and it's a good one, but it should not be
prioritized _for_ the learner. The learner's
priority, it should be apparent, is to learn a
second language as quickly, painlessly, and as well
as possible. We can expect this to 'drive' nearly
all learners, but the need to question and explore
may not, and I don't understand why we should demand
or impose it.
Paragraph four starts with the following:
>A focus on the learner as organiser implies the
necessity to hand over control of the learning steps
to the learners and requires from the teacher to
take a backseat in this process.
'A focus on the learner as organiser' doesn't imply
very much at all, realistically. First of all, the
phrase can be broadly understood, and then it
implies very little: learners always are, and always
have been, the organizers of their learning, and
teachers can't force organizational learning
patterns on them. So, in a sense, whatever teaching
approach is taken, learners will have control over
the learning steps. But in addition learners are
capable of incorporating teachers 'expert' input on
how best to organize and proceduralize their
learning. So, the teacher can take the driver's seat
if so allowed by learners.
But what the Lians are more apparently saying here
is that 'the learner as organiser' reality implies
that the teacher should not be instructing students
in a step-by-step manner, and this is an example of
the strong proscriptivism in the article. Again,
what if instructing students in a step-by-step,
teacher-led manner works more effectively than
completely individualized instruction? It can't
conceivably do so, according to 'Shao-lin', but we
need more than theory as evidence.
Well, this is getting too long; I think a discussion
of the 'Critical issues' would be somewhat
repetitive, and I won't fully explain the
behaviorism link. But, of course, the
'individualized instruction' approach is originally
a behaviorist approach, and while powerful had
problems related to 'weaknesses' (we get bored, we
need to socialize) of humans as learning machines.
Nuff said,
John
===
habe...@yahoo.com
or (above is best)
habe...@nicuc.ac.jp
or
NIC (Nevada-california International Consortium of colleges and universities,
Japan)
Shinjuku 5-9-16
Tokyo 160 JAPAN
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Ania Lian
show what the paper is as opposed to what it is not. In the second part, I
will try to focus on the problem which transcends all Ron's critiques.
Part I
The paper is *not* about distance education, it is *not* about CALL, it is
*not* about what to do with the things it talks about. These are different
stories, but not that of the paper (see the paper on 'Macrosimulation'
though, which I will put on the Internet within the next couple of days).
The paper is a contribution to thinking about information management in
relation to language pdagogy. It does not seek to find out "relationships
between classroom instruction and interaction and the learners' developing
second language (L2) ability" (Lightbown and Spada, 1990). On the
contrary, it attempts to agrue that such ways of a setting of the problem
of L2-pedagogy meet both ethical and intellectual difficulties.
The former I posed in my reply to John. The latter is that of the
difficulty to propose anything when the question of information-management
is not resolved. Thus to pose the question of the kind above implies that
the question about the reference basis against which "instruction" is to
follow is resolve and all we have to do is to check the outcome. The
Shaolin paper would like to put into question any results of studies where
the question of the what is information is not problematised i.e. where
what we give learners is seen as information for acquisition on the basis
of the belief that what we give has a potential to be, or in worst cases,
is meaningful. But, the question which Shaolin hopes to highlight is the
very concern of eduactors and people involved in literacy work.
If Ron, or others, can show work which does the very thing which the
Shaolin does, I would appreciate it. So far, the majority of work in
L2-pedagogy is about how to get your learners learn grammar, words,
sounds, or in more ambitious studies, other organisational structures of
texts. We would like to question the very status of reality of
such structures in the sense that these concepts are usually treated.
Because the question remains, what is it that we are trying to do with the
models of reality that we hold? Teach them? As as Ron says himself, they
are "complex", what does this mean?
Do we make them simple by making focusing in our teaching on what we think
the problem is? Ron seems to suggest that alophonic differences can be
taught by helping learners at "understanding the nature of the
phonetic factors which cause the variation". The paper though says, you do
not teach for learners to understand the nature of the factors, but at the
level of the systems' dynamics. The difference is that factors are fixed,
dynamics are a product of an analysis, at the practical level, of the
relationships which seem (for the learner) to govern production.
Part II
As in my previous reply to John, rather than produce a book, I will try to
focus my mail on the concern that seems to underlie Ron's message.In my
view, the critique which Ron makes is caused by his miscomprehension of
the point around which the paper revolves.
For Ron, the paper seems to suggest that it is the *teacher's* feedback
that facilitates learning. In other words, Ron reads the paper as an
attempt to show how this can be done.
We would like to suggest that we have argued quite a different model of
feedback and hence of learning. Had we been arguing for a model of
learning where the teacher's feedback is to be thought as enlightening, or
faciliating learning, the paper would contradict its claim for
individualisation of the learning process. It is important to notice the
difference because it is this difference that separates this paper from
most of the pedagogic models of feedback proposed in the literature.
That Ron misses the point around which the paper revolves becomes evident
in his statements where he says that we talk about "enlightment" caused by
teacher's enlightening feedback, or he implies that the teacher can
provide "appropriate authentic materials". What would make an authentic
text inappropriate?
Thus Ron writes:
(a)
> "Within this, the teacher is to act as facilitator who enables the
>learner to understand by >offering enlightenment when needed, the
>argument for which is justified by the two analogies >of visual and
>sound perception - of which more later."
(b)
>"This seems desirable as to follow the Lians' philosophy of simply
>exposing them to >appropriate authentic materials would not allow the
>students to learn fundamentals necessary >for future progress. ESP
>situations also appear to be situations which do not lend themselves >to
>self-directed learning."
We would like to point out that the teacher is not a facilitator of
learning in the sense that this role is generally thought of. What we
would like to point out is that Dr. G in the anectodes did *not*
facilitate the spotting of the Halley's comet. He could not. As the
anctodes say, Dr G. could not even be sure whether they spoke of the same
object even if the two agreed that they did. What Dr. G. (for the curious,
G. stands for Prof. Guberina:-)) did facilitate were conditions which
allowed the learner to constrict his choices in a manner that the two
could think, or believe, that they were talking about the same thing: the
fundamental problem of communication.
This is a very important difference, one which distinguishes between a
pedagogy that teaches what the teacher *knows* is out there, and a
pedagogy which facilitates operating in symbols that others recognise as
"comprehensible".
Now, the question is: Does Ron believe in a model of learning where the
*teacher's* feedback is conceived as facilitating learning?
The answer to this question would seem to be *yes* as his quotes seem to
indicate:
> "ESP situations also appear to be situations which do not lend
>themselves to self-directed learning. Take young Saudis learning to be
>fighter pilots a situation I have experienced) and
>being taught English which is absolutely essential to enable them to
>fly."
Are you, Ron, claiming that functioning in situations for which the ESL
program prepared you is about retrieving the reflexes from the database of
functions/actions *covered* in the ESP program? Is this what
comprehension and production require?
Furthermore, rather than answering myself his points in regard to how we
can match artificial conditions with "reality", I would like to contribute
a quote from IFETS-list where the issue of individualisation in education
in general has been discussed just recently. Sorry, I did not keep the
name of the author:
"Almost exactly a hundred years ago William James delivered his "Talks to
Teachers" at Harvard U. In the course of his comments he said, "There is
no reason, if we are classing the different types of apperception
[learning styles before they had that name (R.L.)], that we should stop at
sixteen rather than sixteen hundred." So, one of the greatest minds to
ever turn its attention to pedagogy was, a hundred years ago, lampooning a
metaphorical construct that has been re-discovered near the end of the
millennium.
The defense of learning styles often takes the form of, "how can
anyone deny that people are all different from one another?" Well, nobody
does. But this is the kind of thing natural scientists call "a theory too
true to be good." (sic) This means it is so obvious that it is useless,
because it suggests no course of action when dealing with a group. After
"therefore..." nothing follows. I don't think James Atherton's apprentice
teachers are in any way unique when they find
the whole idea of little practical value in their teaching. On a
somewhat related topic, David (Merrill) seems to think I have gone
overboard and am suggesting that nothing but content should determine
instructional strategy. Perhaps I left that impression. In fact, I do
believe that the goals of instruction are, in principle at least,
separable from the content. I won't go so far as
David and claim that *every discipline* has the same set of goals. But I
do believe that certain goals apply preferentially to certain content, and
the combination of goals and content should be the primary determinants in
instructional strategy.
Some posting have complained that learning styles have not been
adequately defined. How could they be, if they are (as Alan Cromer says
in "Connected Knowledge") determined by the richness of the imagination of
whoever saw the problem in these terms (essentially the same thing William
James was saying a hundred years ago.)"
best wishes,
Ania Lian
http://education.canberra.edu.au/~andrewl/mlal2
Ronald Sheen
missing the point once again, perhaps she could do something that she has
always avoided doing in the past - get down to the nitty gritty. The paper
precludes no learning situations from its purview. Ania also maintains
that I have misinterpreted the paper's description of the function of the
teacher even though their description of the analogous situations does not
preclude what I said. Would she address the two learning situations I
mentioned in my response and add to them the case, say, of American
businessmen about to go and work in Japan. We thus have three separate
groups each with its common set of needs. Would Ania explain how she would
arrange things in order that the individuals would best benefit from what
she suggests, how they would reach their common goals and how the
respective teachers would function in each of the three situations.
She might also explain how her approach would tackle the problem caused by
the language learner's being puzzled by what is allophonic variation but is
simply initially perceived of as different random pronunciations.
It might also be helpful if she can add any empirical evidence to
demonstrate the success achieved by what the paper proposes as I assume that
she is not proposing on the Net an approach which has not been proven to be
more effective than what is presently available. Then again, maybe she is.
Ron Sheen U of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Canada.
Ron Sheen U of Quebec in Trois Riviieres, Canada.
Ania Lian
> Charles interprets the Lians' position as being one which argues for a
> different presentation for each student. This is not borne out by the
> content of the internet authentic materials which as I see them would be the
> same for each learner who accessed a particular one.
You have missed the point Ron, did you see the text below. Btw, for those
who understood the paper, we actually did it:-) Andrew presented the model
at various conferences since the actual working out of how to make a
data-free database (what we call, empty versions of programs) was well
beyond any glimpses of intellect that I could offer.:-)
Quote A:
"A system such as the one described implies the ability for people, either
singly or in groups, to do different things at different times, and
attacks in a fundamental way the standard notion of "classroom" as the
privileged place for teaching and learning and as a place for synchronous
activity. In turn, this also attacks the concept of fixed teaching
materials supporting a pre-determined teaching programme. If different
people do different things at the same time they will need to have access
to different materials for different purposes. Thus the standard
pre-programmed textbook would disappear and would need to be replaced by
something like sets of organised resources. These could take the form of
on-line databases of authentic materials (cf. .Lian & Mestre, 1985; Lian,
A. B., 1996)."
quote B:
In the system conceptualised above, the audiovisual database would act as
the central component for all interaction. It would provide information in
the usual way, retrieving and displaying information as in the case of the
current version of MMBase, but, in addition, it would be able to provide
the data or content required by the now "empty" versions of MMBrowse,
Intonation Patterns of French, IBMReg and so on.
There are several advantages to this method of organisation, especially in
a learner-centred perspective, as the following
comments will illustrate.
Rather than doing and re-doing lessons whose content has been
pre-determined, learners would be able to generate (i.e. create), on
demand, lessons appropriate to their needs. For instance, learners wishing
to discover/study specific intonation patterns might request a lesson on
"short neutral declarative statements" (selecting other parameters as
appropriate to specify the patterns further). The lesson system
(designated "Intonation Training" in the above diagram) would then
retrieve the required information from the audiovisual database and either
make a selection of patterns or list the patterns for the learners to
choose from on the basis of their personal learning objectives.
The source of the intonation patterns would be a range of authentic
materials such as televised political speeches, televised game shows,
cultural debates, radio news etc. The system proposed above would then
literally construct a lesson consisting of authentic instances of the
selected intonation patterns. Thus the models provided would not be
contrived or artificial and, in many cases, the learners would also be
able to see a video recording of native speakers actually producing the
intonations in their natural context.
Learners could then be sensitised to the selected intonation patterns and
would practise them with all of the support currently provided in
Intonation Patterns of French (i.e. filtering to enhance perception,
intense repetition, forward and backward build-up drills to sensitise to
pitch contours and pitch differences, discrimination exercises between
filtered and unfiltered patterns etc.).
Further, because the program is designed to be fully integrated with
other support systems, learners would be able to seek additional
information regarding the various functions of the intonations by
interrogating the database system directly e.g. who produced the
utterance, in what situation, for what purpose. This would allow learners
to relate for themselves, intonative information against situational,
discursive and other pertinent information.. The system design ensures
that all of its components (i.e. lesson materials and other programs) are
linked automatically to one another.
This means that rich information would be easily and, most
importantly, quickly available from all parts of the system. Thus learners
could immediately switch from an MMBrowse exploration to an Intonation
Patterns of French lesson to a dialogue practice session and then on
to a more focused IBMreg listening comprehension lesson depending upon
their learning objectives (e.g. practise an intonation pattern and identify
the various contexts in which it is appropriate while developing their
listening ability etc.)
The essential feature of this kind of organisation is that data will be
arranged in such a way that it can be made available easily
and immediately to all the different components requiring it."
best,
ania
Ronald Sheen
the point she and others might end up believing it. However, to do so
she'll have to do somewhat better than her last post. Let's recap. Charles
assumed that your materials were so managed that given some sub-set thereof
,say on advertising, there were different ways of presenting that sub-set
according to individual differences. Thus there may be ten different ways
of presenting the same material. This was certainly not made explicit in
what I read in the paper for it makes no mention of this issue and certainly
does not talk of offering different presentations of the same base material.
I said this to Charles who answered that he would review the paper. Now,
Ania maintains that my reply misses the point and in a vain attempt to prove
it, provides two excerpts from her husbands writing. Yet nowhere therein is
there any mention of what Charles assumed to be present in the article. So
let's put the question simply and directly. Does the paper under discussion
suggest that the Lians' approach will present different versions of the same
material to suit different types of learners. If so, could Ania cite the
relevant passage or tell us where we can find it. If not, could she explain
how I have missed the point in terms of what is said in the paper.
Ronald Sheen
about presentations being tailored to different personal histories and
different personalities. This is entirely different from what is contained
in the excerpts provided by Ania which simply talks of learners having
different objectives which would be provided for by the resources provided.
It does not say that given leaners A and B with different personal histories
and personalities, the resources would offer two different presentations of
the same base material to suit those personal histories and personalities.
If it does, would Ania point out where in their paper this is explained.
Another point which I did not raise in my initial response to the paper
concerns the Lians' rejection of the principle of predetermined materials.
However, presenting learning materials to any group of learners necessarily
entails some form of predetermination. Even if one limits oneself to
authentic materials, it necessarily entails selection which is necessarily
based on criteria which necessarily entail some form of predetermination.
However, the Lians' material is not simply limited to authentic materials.
Some is also prepared by the information managers which once again
necessarily entails some form of predetermination.
Is this the Humpty Dumpty syndrome again? Predetermination only means
predetermination when the Lians say so.
Ronald Sheen
If you look back to your response to my response to Charles and compare it
with what you have just written, you will find that you have changed
(uninitentionally, of couse) your position.
Any chance of getting any responses to the various questions I have asked
of you?
John Haberstroh
responses to mine and Ron's concerns, ones that
require hard thinking. Her paper, of course, is not
appropriate food for everyone's thoughts. I think we
should thank her for that and move on.
Maybe, just maybe, it was a mistake to focus on one
of the list members' publications here on SLART,
though I think/hope Ania appreciated much of the
feedback...
Ania Lian
> Ania apparently believes that if she says often enough that I have missed
> the point she and others might end up believing it.
No:-( The assumption was to provide an umbrella (an "advanced organiser",
if you like) for explaining what I was going to explain. I am sorry you
missed that:-(
> she'll have to do somewhat better than her last post. Let's recap. Charles
> assumed that your materials were so managed that given some sub-set thereof
> ,say on advertising, there were different ways of presenting that sub-set
> according to individual differences.
Did Charles say this? I do not remember but if he did he misread the
paper. I thought that the point of the paper was to problematise the very
issue of presentation and hence of "representation" rather than to
suggest that we should embark on thinking of how can we represent the text
to learner in many different ways.
Btw, in case this gets also missed, I cannot see how support structures
like resources, could be presented according to some differences. It is
the differences that regulate the ways of accessing (looking at) the
texts:-( The point of the resources offered by us is to argue that unless
we bring in flexibility into the learning environment, we embark on the
methodology of a goose-step.
> Thus there may be ten different ways of presenting the same material.
ugh? Why ten? a good number though:-)
> This was certainly not made explicit in
> what I read in the paper for it makes no mention of this issue and certainly
> does not talk of offering different presentations of the same base material.
ogo ogo, we are getting bit entangled here. I think we need a specialist
on a "non-emotional" reading of texts, i.e. at the level of their
"semantic representation" (???), a rational being, who knows what things
are when s/he sees them. There are times when I am almost ready to succumb
to the proponents of the truth-value of statements...
> I said this to Charles who answered that he would review the paper. Now,
> Ania maintains that my reply misses the point and in a vain attempt to prove
> it, provides two excerpts from her husbands writing. Yet nowhere therein is
> there any mention of what Charles assumed to be present in the article.
I wonder why?
> So
> let's put the question simply and directly. Does the paper under discussion
> suggest that the Lians' approach will present different versions of the same
> material to suit different types of learners. If so, could Ania cite the
> relevant passage or tell us where we can find it. If not, could she explain
> how I have missed the point in terms of what is said in the paper.
I could not:-(
But we sure hope that:
(a) the management of the resources which the system described as well as
(b) the conditions of learning in which the need for working with
resources emerges,
together offer conditions which make the task of accessing the "logic" of
the systems which regulate production and hence comprehension more
flexible and hence more accessible (or comprehensible, in the brad sense
of this word):
"In practical terms, this requirement leads to a necessity to create
conditions where the learner is given access to a multitude of devices to
facilitate the linking and organising of information." (from "Shaolin")
Ania
Adamson
>If Ron, or others, can show work which does the very thing which the
>Shaolin does, I would appreciate it. So far, the majority of work in
>L2-pedagogy is about how to get your learners learn grammar, words,
>sounds, or in more ambitious studies, other organisational structures of
>texts. We would like to question the very status of reality of
>such structures in the sense that these concepts are usually treated.
>Because the question remains, what is it that we are trying to do with the
>models of reality that we hold? Teach them? As as Ron says himself, they
>are "complex", what does this mean?
>
This makes perfect sense to me. Does anyone else out there besides Ania
understand it too.
Charles Adamson
ada...@mxu.meshnet.or.jp
Adamson
>> she'll have to do somewhat better than her last post. Let's recap.
Charles
>> assumed that your materials were so managed that given some sub-set
thereof
>> ,say on advertising, there were different ways of presenting that sub-set
>> according to individual differences.
>
>Did Charles say this? I do not remember but if he did he misread the
>paper. I thought that the point of the paper was to problematise the very
>issue of presentation and hence of "representation" rather than to
>suggest that we should embark on thinking of how can we represent the text
>to learner in many different ways.
>
>Btw, in case this gets also missed, I cannot see how support structures
>like resources, could be presented according to some differences. It is
>the differences that regulate the ways of accessing (looking at) the
>texts:-( The point of the resources offered by us is to argue that unless
>we bring in flexibility into the learning environment, we embark on the
>methodology of a goose-step.
>
Although I have not been to work yet to re-read the paper, what I meant is
best represented by Ania's quote, not Ron's. It is not a question of
pre-packaging materials it is a question of reacting to the student in the
context of the learning situation. Buddhism has a concept called "upaya" (if
I have not misspelled it) which is quite similar - you teach the student
what they need to get a step closer to the goal, not the 'truth'.
Charles Adamson
ada...@mxu.meshnet.or.jp
Ania Lian
question, I am now going to retire to my own work as slart-l, as yet, is
not a well-paid job:-) After this reply, I intend to leave the discussion
until some other inquiries arrive. I hope Ron can engage others in a
lively discussion.
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Ronald Sheen wrote:
> Would she address the two learning situations I
> mentioned in my response and add to them the case, say, of American
> businessmen about to go and work in Japan.
as every other course: you offer conditons which help to turn a
meaningless into a meaningful. This is to be done in ways which: bring the
real-life problems into the environment and which make the solutions of
these problems depend on the conditions of the real-life (cf.
Macrosimulation, Lian and Mestre, 1985).
Easy, I guess since the popular claim is that anyone can teach a language.
Just ask them! And since teaching is also labeled as art, as opposed to
thought (?:-)), then there we go, let's be creative i.e. think
uncrtically, if you can. If you can't, well, you will be labeled an
ignorrant and arrogant academic. That's life. You're doomed both ways.
> groups each with its common set of needs. Would Ania explain how she would
> arrange things in order that the individuals would best benefit from what
> she suggests, how they would reach their common goals and how the
> respective teachers would function in each of the three situations.
No one's goals are common because no one's meaning is common. The
commonality of meaning is an illusion (love being a magician at last!).
So, I would not strive for commonality but rather for making the uncommon
to be approximated to that which appears to be common; i.e. for making
that which is idiosyncratic to be based on more than a single-sourced
reference basis.
> She might also explain how her approach would tackle the problem caused
> by the language learner's being puzzled by what is allophonic variation
> but is simply initially perceived of as different random
> pronunciations.
Is it perceived as such? In most cases, we would sugest, no difference is
noticed. And if it is noticed at random, the critical elements are not
noticed. What learners have is just a fuzzy representation (cf. Lian,
1980).
In regard to the criteria which the paper raises, in order to correct
pronunciation errors, you would have to problematise the notion of sounds:
i.e. why do people hear what they hear? Is it a question of articulation?
It is a common knowledge that there is no correspondence between the sound
and vocal action used to produce it as there is no simple correspondence
between acoustic parameters and the phenommenological sound. Thus a
methodology which is based on an idea of pronouncing clearly to learners
so that they can hear better is naive and funny. Not to mention those to
which I was subjected when learning German: a kind of: "see the graph?,
now do it!" Sure, such techniques, in certain onditions, can be helpful,
just as nobody can claim that structural drills are not. But the question
of the methodology for teaching differences requires first a rethinking of
what is it that we are trying to do.
An example of such a poblematisation:
"The impairment of ear should not present a chaotic state. [...] Bad
perception of foreign sounds does not mean that we do not hear well: but
our perception of these sounds is linked with the system of our mother
tongue. The errors cannot be corrected through the linear way of
amplification with the whole spectrum of the word: if it would be so, all
the adults living in foreign countries would pronounce well the language
spoken in the respective country. But this does not happen. On the
contrary, we are aware that the improvement in the pronunciation occurs if
some elements of sound are underlined and some others eliminated."
(Guberina, 1972: 26)
> It might also be helpful if she can add any empirical evidence to
> demonstrate the success achieved by what the paper proposes as I assume
> that she is not proposing on the Net an approach which has not been
> proven to be more effective than what is presently available. Then
> again, maybe she is.
The principles on which the paper draws do indeed have an exprimental
back-up. If you dig in the library under prof. Guberina (and your postings
show you like reading old stuff), you will find a whole library of
experiments conducted to teach deaf people to hear (not lip-read). I am
sure that in his book, Lian (1980), you will find references to such
experiments. Furthermore, methodology of studies in critical sociological
semiotics, literacy teaching and overall education, cultural studies (e.g.
prof. R. Chambers at Michigan Univ) raise the same questions as the paper
does.
Also for approx. 20-years the department of French at the University of
Queensland had been doing nothing else but teaching French in a manner
that takes a perspective on learning and information management which the
paper just sketched. (Some of the work conducted ther you will find on
Andrew's site.) I am sure that nowadays with people like prof. A. Freadman
and prof. P. Cryle, the foundations of critical thinking, which they have
laid together with few other scholars like prof. Andrew Lian, prof.
Jean-Michelle Raynaud, prof. Keith Atkinson, people like Christine Mestre
who now run a private school of French in Paris (some may argue: an
ultimate proof that something is working well) to mention the few that I
can recall, in that department have been only strengthened.
Is this enough? No, by no means. But our assumption is that no proof is a
proof of anything other than what we think we proved. Thus the most
important thing is not to look for proofs as such but to establish a
framework for thinking about what one does in order to understand own
actions and those of others. Once we have this in place, we can go on
developing, "proving", criticising and strengthening the basis on which
the learning model sits. As we say in our paper:
"This paper has provided a description of the sort of language-learning
environment that ought to be developed not only in a teaching perspective
but also in a research perspective. Not surprisingly, much remains to be
done. The interactive-exploratory environment described above will need to
be further researched, re-defined and refined at both the macro and the
micro levels. It will require in-depth scrutiny as time goes by but it
has the advantage of being theoretically-based, internally consistent and
coherent and provides the opportunity to develop language-learning
components likely to be of value even before the system has been fully
conceptualised and assembled."
Ania Lian
Ronald Sheen
position - not surprisingly as he apparently had not read the article. I
pointed out the difference between his false interpretation and that in the
paper itself. Then Ania makes the mistake of assuming that my description
of Charles position is in some convoluted way my position. And then Charles
still not having read the paper say that Ania represents some other position
better than I did which is quite likely because I was not describing that
other position in the first place. What's it even more ludicrous is that it
is nothing to do with the central criticisms that John and I have made of
the paper which Ania has not yet begun to address .
Is there a stronger word than ludicrous?
Ania Lian
> Just to add a little more substance to my last post, Charles was talking
> about presentations being tailored to different personal histories and
> different personalities. This is entirely different from what is contained
> in the excerpts provided by Ania which simply talks of learners having
> different objectives which would be provided for by the resources provided.
You make a distinction because you believe in the possibility of
tailoring. You do so also because you fall victim to the social magic
which makes the model appear telling it as it is (Candlin after
Stenhouse, 1987).
I do not say that different objectives will be provided alone by a better
access to information. What I say is that learners appropriate resources
to own objectives: but resources are not appropriated to learners.
However, the conditions for better accessing may be appropriated to
specific demands which arise in the context of learners grappling with
specific problems. So, we make a distinction between the manner of
accesing and the resources.
ugh,
Ania Lian
Ania Lian
> Maybe, just maybe, it was a mistake to focus on one
> of the list members' publications here on SLART,
> though I think/hope Ania appreciated much of the
> feedback...
Any chance to hear about alternative options?
Ania
Professor Andrew Lian
I have been watching the Shao-Lin debate from afar as I do not,
unfortunately, have the time to participate in it. However, I cannot allow
the following remark to go unanswered:
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Ronald Sheen wrote:
> I think the problem is not that of discussing an article of a fellow member,
> as John suggests, but that of discussing an article that has not appeared in
> a refereed journal. It happened with Peter Robinson's Sate of the Art paper
> and has happened again with the Lians'. There is simply so much in such
> articles that would not see the light of day in journals with a blind review
> process.
A careful reading of the paper as published on the Web would have revealed
that the paper was actually published in a refereed journal of the same
status as Re-CALL and similar journals of good repute. While it is true
that I am a member of the editorial board of On-CALL, this paper, like all
academic papers published in On-CALL, was submitted to a blind review
process and changes were made as a result of feedback. The following lines
appear immediately under the title and just before the introduction:
"This article has been published in ON-CALL, May 1997, Centre for Language
Teaching and Research, University of Queensland, pp. 2-19. If quoted,
reference should be made to the fact that it was published in ON-CALL. The
authors gratefully acknowledge permission given by ON-CALL to publish the
article electronically."
Next time, I suggest a more careful reading of the paper.
Andrew Lian
Professor Andrew Lian
Head, School of Languages and International Education
Professor of Languages and Second Language Education
Division of Communication and Education
University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
International phone: +61 2 6201 5010, e-mail: Andre...@canberra.edu.au
International fax: +61 2 6201 5089
http://education.canberra.edu.au/~andrewl/mlapl
Ronald Sheen
I have been watching the Shao-Lin debate from afar as I do not,
unfortunately, have the time to participate in it.
He then informs us that
A careful reading of the paper as published on the Web would have revealed
that the paper was actually published in a refereed journal of the same
status as Re-CALL and similar journals of good repute. While it is true
that I am a member of the editorial board of On-CALL, this paper, like all
academic papers published in On-CALL, was submitted to a blind review
process and changes were made as a result of feedback.
**In actual fact, it is not stated anywehere that ON-CALL is a refereed
journal. However, clearly, I should have known this and that articles are,
therefore, submitted to a blind review process by the editiorial board. I,
therefore, offer the Lians my apologies. The fact that the article was
blind-reviewed, however, prompts the following remarks:
1. In my initial post on this thread, I raised the issue of the refereed
status of the article and have referred to it several times. As Andrew has
been following the thread since the beginning, I wonder why he did not
offer the clarification immediately, particularly as he is unable to allow
such an error to go by uncorrected
2. The fact that this paper went through a blind review process raises
questions as to the composition of the editorial board. Would Andrew or
Ania tell us how many applied linguists/SLAers are on this board? I find
it hard to believe that any such member worth his salt would allow the
article to be published as such and this for the reasons given in my
initial post. Just to repeat one of them. Any of the leading applied
linguist journals would have insisted on the necessity for a review of the
relevant literature which would hopefully have addressed fundamental issues
such as the justification for the use authentic materials, previos
exploitation of "discovery learning" and approaches which give freedom to
learners to choose what they wish to learn. Or, at the very least, a
justification for not addressing such matters.
3. The bibliography of the article also raises questions as to the blind
reviewers. It contains about 30 items, fully half of which are authored by
one or other or both of the Lians - a less than desirable marked imbalance.
Of the other half of the items, only one is authored by an applied linguist
of any repute. This means that both the Lians and the blind reviewers
appear to believe that apart from Lantolf's article nothing has been
published in the field of applied linguistics/SLA that has any necessary
relevance to the issues discussed in the paper. This stretches the limits
of credibility and raises questions as to the rigour of the review process.
So much so in fact that it is possible that there was not an applied
linguist/SLAer of repute among the blind reviewers - assuming that is that
there were more than two.
4. Of the modifictions proposed by the blind reviewers, which ones were
related to applied linguistic/SLA issues?
Could Ania or Andrew tells us something of the composition of the editorial
board or tells where it is listed. Or is there anyone on the list who can
offer such information?
Charles Nelson
>Maybe, just maybe, it was a mistake to focus on one
>of the list members' publications here on SLART,
>though I think/hope Ania appreciated much of the
>feedback...
I don't think it was a mistake in focusing on it, but the problem seems to
be in some of our responses to it. I had read it once before and was glad
to read it again.
My own experience in teaching ESL has been to use books (chosen by our
department) that were graded from easy to difficult in a lockstep fashion.
In fact, this is what most (not all) of our teachers wanted and expected.
Many more articles like the Lians' is needed before educators not only
understand that students learn in different, unpredictable ways, but use
that understanding in the classroom.
Moreover, learning an L2 is not quick or painless. And in the US, quite a
few students take their 2 years of required language study and stop. Why
don't they continue? Because there's not enough intrinsic motivation, or
we might say "need to question and discover." Some substantial work has
shown in educational psychology that intrinsic motivation (and continued
learning on one's own after class) is driven by factors like curiosity,
challenge, and learner's control of a situation or autonomy.
Some students, for various reasons, will continue to acquire an L2, despite
teachers' efforts, albeit unintentional, to dampen these students'
intrinsic motivation by practicing "one instructional method fits all".
For many other students, though, classroom instruction/learning needs to be
restructured so as to optimize motivation and, consequently, their
continuing of language study. For these students, as Ania said,
"individualisation is crucial. It is not a luxury, but a necessity."
Charles Nelson
c.ne...@mail.utexa.edu
Ronald Sheen
as John suggests, but that of discussing an article that has not appeared in
a refereed journal. It happened with Peter Robinson's Sate of the Art paper
and has happened again with the Lians'. There is simply so much in such
articles that would not see the light of day in journals with a blind review
process.
As to the approach that the Lians' advocate, because of Ania's apparent
reluctance to actually explain amongst other things, how she tackles the day
to day problems of language teaching, I still have little to no idea of how
their programme would actually function.
It would have helped if Ania could have offered some concrete evidence of
progress made by students using their second/foreign language programme.
Unfortunately, she offered none.
However, all was not for nought. It has made me realise that one can now
"publish" for the world wide reading public basically any article one wishes
without its being subjected to any form of review process. That article can
then be made part of one's CV. Not a happy thought.
All this said, a word of praise for Ania for having the courage to allow
what she and her husband have written to be discussed in an open forum - not
an esay thing to do. It is a pity that more members did not offer their
reactions to the paper.
John Haberstroh
> My own experience in teaching ESL has been to use books (chosen by our
> department) that were graded from easy to difficult in a lockstep fashion.
> In fact, this is what most (not all) of our teachers wanted and expected.
> Many more articles like the Lians' is needed before educators not only
> understand that students learn in different, unpredictable ways, but use
> that understanding in the classroom.
I think every educator I've ever spoken to acknowledges that individualization
of instruction is a good thing and that learners learn in different ways,
sometimes unpredictable. It is difficult to use that knowledge in the
classroom, and I don't believe the Lian's paper addresses use in the classroom.
They were focusing on the need, as they saw it, to take the learning out of the
classroom, possibly onto the internet.
>
> Moreover, learning an L2 is not quick or painless. And in the US, quite a
> few students take their 2 years of required language study and stop. Why
> don't they continue? Because there's not enough intrinsic motivation, or
> we might say "need to question and discover."
I don't think the intrinsic motivation is the very general 'need to question
and discover.' Most learners of an L2 are doing so because they are required to
or because they would like to communicate with L2 speakers/writers. I don't
exactly understand where you're coming from, actually. Is it a problem when
learners give up learning something they find pointless, due to a lack of
intrinsic motivation? I don't think so, if that thing really is pointless for
them.
> Some substantial work has
> shown in educational psychology that intrinsic motivation (and continued
> learning on one's own after class) is driven by factors like curiosity,
> challenge, and learner's control of a situation or autonomy.
Curiosity about what? If the learner is interested in the people who
speak/write the 2L, they will tend to have a higher intrinsic motivation. But
again, who doesn't agree with this? The Lians were proposing, it seemed to me,
a completely individualized approach to 2L learning. No one disagrees with
individualization, it is complete individualization that needed some
logical/theoretical/empirical support.
>
> Some students, for various reasons, will continue to acquire an L2, despite
> teachers' efforts, albeit unintentional, to dampen these students'
> intrinsic motivation by practicing "one instructional method fits all".
Once again, who are these teachers? Have you spoken to several recently? What
did they say when you suggested they were using 'one size fits all'
instruction? In fact, I haven't met any teachers in the last ten years that
practice 'one size fits all' instruction. Everyone I've met seems, in practice,
at least according to what they tell me, to be one kind of eclectic or another.
I admit that I basically know only IEP instructors, and when you have 21 hours
of instruction time a week, it is impossible to avoid eclecticism.
> For many other students, though, classroom instruction/learning needs to be
> restructured so as to optimize motivation and, consequently, their
> continuing of language study. For these students, as Ania said,
> "individualisation is crucial. It is not a luxury, but a necessity."
As I said before, this is a truism. Who learns from being told what they
already know, what everyone already agrees with? In my review of the Lians
article I tried to focus on what seemed to be new, the move away from
classrooms, the rejection of 'step-by-step' and levels, and the move toward
completely individualized instruction. Besides, of course, the teachers'
mind-expanding anecdotes at the beginning of the paper.
Anyway, let's move on to another paper. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Ronald Sheen
find it brings the occasional smile to my lips but on the whole is terribly
predictable, sometimes crude, occasionally embarrassing, and often simply
unfunny. "Chacun..," and all that.
Ania Lian
> I think every educator I've ever spoken to acknowledges that
> individualization of instruction is a good thing and that learners learn
> in different ways, sometimes unpredictable. It is difficult to use that
> knowledge in the classroom, and I don't believe the Lian's paper
> addresses use in the classroom. They were focusing on the need, as they
> saw it, to take the learning out of the classroom, possibly onto the
> internet.
Did anyone involved in this discussion notice that Shaolin is a paper not
a book? As it is, it is pages long, longer than most papers. The
characteristic of a good paper is a focus not an opportunity to include in
it everything you know.
Now, for the opportunity to look at what you can do in practice, you can
have a look at the paper Lian and Mestre: 'Goal-Directed Communicative
Interaction and Macrosimulation', in Revue de Phonetique Appliquee, Paris,
Didier, 1985, nos. 73-75, pp. 185-210. The paper is also on the Internet
under: http://education.canberra.edu.au/%7Eandrewl/mlapl/
The Appendix is not inclued but those whilling can find it in the library
version of the paper. Maybe if I find some time I will type it in. It is
no short.
> Curiosity about what? If the learner is interested in the people who
> speak/write the 2L, they will tend to have a higher intrinsic motivation. But
> again, who doesn't agree with this? The Lians were proposing, it seemed to me,
> a completely individualized approach to 2L learning. No one disagrees with
> individualization, it is complete individualization that needed some
> logical/theoretical/empirical support.
In my reply to your first mail on the subject I posed some questions which
you probably see as irrelevant. I will change the question and ask: do you
believe in facts? What do you do with people who do not believe in your
facts? Is a fact what *you* see? Do your facts change? If yes, why? If no,
why? Should facts change simultaneously to all? But then again, if your
facts have changed, was it because you did not listen to the experts in
the first place? Do you see a link between my question and the concern
with individualisation as a necessity?
Charles Nelson wrote:
> > Some students, for various reasons, will continue to acquire an L2, despite
> > teachers' efforts, albeit unintentional, to dampen these students'
> > intrinsic motivation by practicing "one instructional method fits all".
John's reply was:
> Once again, who are these teachers? Have you spoken to several recently? What
> did they say when you suggested they were using 'one size fits all'
> instruction?
My mother, when I moved to Australia she came to visit me. With the
communism in Poland I saw her only after I spent in Australia almost a
decade. On the plane they screened "Mr. Bean". Now, we know that Mr Bean
says nothing: this makes things easier for the discussion. Can you though
tell me why my mother landed in Australia convinced that the English have,
to express it adequately for the Internet, strange sense of humour. Now,
poor thing, when I asked her what was it that she saw on the plane, she
told me the story-line and to her horror she discovered that I was in
stitches, laughing. She came to Australia to find her daughter, to share,
and to her horror we lived in two different worlds. Can you tell me how
textbook methodology can have a potential to take you out of your world to
that of the other? Charles' point is: not every theory will make the plane
fly.
> > "individualisation is crucial. It is not a luxury, but a necessity."
> As I said before, this is a truism. Who learns from being told what they
> already know,
Is this what individualisation means? We did not think so.
Ania Lian